Digital Property (RE: Metallica is suing my school)

From: Manire, Aaron D (amanire@indiana.edu)
Date: Tue Apr 18 2000 - 19:55:25 MET DST

  • Next message: Jeremy Hollister: "RE: bob james"

    >Metalica will not sue that school think of the bad PR

    That didn't dissuade them, I'm pretty sure they already filed.

    >I agree that this statement is some what suspect
    >from the guy in Metallica, but it is THEIR creation
    >and no one elses to do with as they please(including
    >sell it off as a commodity to a record label). Every
    >artist from Professor Longhair to Miles Davis, has
    >and is playing for money and needs the money to
    >continue. As long as an artist is true to his/herself

    OK, I've reread my posts and realized my bias on this issue. I'm not much
    of a musician and am a mere amateur dj. So, I essentially have the
    perspective of a music consumer. Digital media is a boon to media
    consumers. But it is simultaneously a bust to media producers who have to
    get paid somehow. We're visiting a looming market failure.

    Why is that? Because the technological revolution transforms the nature of
    the good from private to public. In economics terms, a public good is one
    that is non-rivalry and non-exclusionary. A private good is the opposite.
    Rivalry means that your use of the good subtracts from someone's use of a
    good. Exclusionary means that you can prevent someone else from using the
    good.

    To make this concrete:
    Headphones are a good with inherent rivalry. Since, I like music in stereo,
    I'm the only one who can use my headphones at one time. Just me, myself,
    and I.

    Exclusionary means that you can prevent other people from using the good.
    No pay = no service. Small physical things are relatively easy to prevent
    others from using. The threat of violence is useful to this end (physical
    or legal). Other things are impossible to exclude people's use. This is
    where you see the "Tragedy of the Commons" unfurl. A classic example is a
    lake in which all the fisherman overfish to their own benefit but to the
    detriment of everybody. There ain't enough fish to restock the lake and a
    population crash occurs. The lake is a limited resource. One solution is
    to build a fence around the lake (exclude). Another solution is for
    fishermen to agree to limit their catch. This requires communication,
    verification, and enforcement mechanisms.

    Faithful, inexpensive copying effectively eliminate rivalry and exclusion.

    Faithful, inexpensive copying guarantees an unlimited resource.

    Back to digital media. Art used to be a private good. One copy. There it
    is. You wouldn't even call it a copy. Or an original. It's just unique.
    And digital art is the same way until you share it with somebody. Whether
    you mean to or not. Once you share a digital work, it is out of your
    control. Like grown children, it takes on a life of its own. It is no
    longer "yours".

    As Thomas Jefferson put it, "If nature has made any one thing less
    susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the
    thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess
    as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces
    itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess
    himself of it."

    Digital media renders ideas tangible. And there is no going back to the
    pre-digital era. Sorry Metallica.

    We have all these little tricks to make it exclusionary. Copyright law.
    DVD encryption. I just discovered that there's an algorithm to prevent you
    from burning a copy of a copy of a CD (digital, analog is possible). These
    are tricks to control the proliferation of the good, such that the producer
    can be reimbursed for their efforts. AS THEY SHOULD BE.

    However, in the process. We are constructing a system of mutual
    disfranchisement. We are intentionally depriving those who can not afford
    to pay for the good. The poor cannot afford to participate in this process.
    Producing scarcity, when in reality, a cornucopia of abundance is right
    under our fucking noses. In game theory, this mutual impoverishment is
    called the prisoner's dilemma.

    What are the solutions? Think about how other public goods are paid for.
    Taxes are the old standby. That's how we construct and maintain our roads,
    clean water, and national defense. (Speaking of which, I gotta hit the post
    office!) But that's not a politically popular solution. However, I,
    personally, have been uplifted and inspired by several works funded by the
    NEA. Anybody ever see Alive TV? There's always telethons, pledge drives,
    tedious nuisances that they are. For software, there's the shareware and
    open source models.

    Give away mp3's on your site. But get your visitors e-mail address first.
    Validate them. The consumer sacrifices privacy in exchange for the goods.
    Advertise your merchandise. Advertise other people's merchandise. Tell
    them that you gotta eat and pay the rent, etc. Buy my album with it's
    beautiful cover art. Buy my embroidered t-shirts. Help me out.

    And the economic transaction formerly negotiated through a faceless
    corporate vampire becomes relatively personal. Ain't that something?!

    We really need a global cultural revolution to cope with the information
    revolution. It is clear enough to me that the classical economics of
    rational pure self-interest falter in the domain of digital property.
    Otherwise, we're building a globally encrypted tower of babylon.

    Further ideas?
    Adario



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 18 2000 - 20:05:00 MET DST